SF must protect, not fund, immigrants in country illegally

Supervisor David Campos, during a Board of Supervisors meeting at City Hall, on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2016 in San Francisco, Calif.

Supervisor David Campos, during a Board of Supervisors meeting at...

After the failure of a sales tax on the November ballot and a loathsome promise from President-elect Donald Trump to cut all federal funding to sanctuary cities, San Francisco is facing its first financial budgetary constraints in years.

So why is Supervisor David Campos asking for an additional $5 million to fund a legal fight against deportation that hasn’t even begun?

Campos is proposing that San Francisco spend $5 million to provide legal representation for immigrants living in the country illegally who face deportation. He’d like the Board of Supervisors to vote Dec. 13 — before Trump takes office.

Campos says the legislation would be proof that San Francisco is willing to show it’s a sanctuary city in deed, not only words.

“It’s not just about standing firm against the threat of federal cuts,” Campos said. “It’s about making the investment to provide that additional legal representation for people who are under threat.”

But here’s where things get tricky. We don’t yet know what Trump will do.

How quickly will he move on his threats to deport 3 million immigrants living in the country illegally, and where will they be located? What kind of response will he demand from the country’s long list of sanctuary cities, who won’t be eager to hand over the immigrants in their midst who are in the country illegally?

How will Trump even define sanctuary city? There are many different definitions of sanctuary city, and sanctuary cities usually provide some cooperation to federal immigration officials.

Even San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinance says the city will cooperate with federal immigration officials when they have a warrant for someone or such cooperation is required by state or federal law.

Because we don’t yet know Trump’s plans, it’s hard to say what San Francisco’s response should be.

What we do know is that San Francisco is facing some very concrete budget concerns.

City officials planned a much-needed expansion of homeless shelter and services around the passage of a sales tax, Proposition K. That decision proved to be unwise, as voters turned down the tax at the ballot box. Unfortunately, the need for more Navigation Centers (shelters with on-site services) and other housing services for homeless people can’t be wished away quite as easily.

The city is also staring at a pension shortfall that’s $5 billion and may grow.

Furthermore, if Trump truly does intend to cut off federal funding for cities that don’t do as he wishes, San Francisco will be facing budget shortfalls for everything from law enforcement to public transportation. San Francisco receives about $1 billion a year from the federal government.

In other words, this is no time for any city leader to ask for $5 million for a brand-new program.

Campos suggested the $5 million could come from the city’s general fund reserve.

“And we’re certainly open to where else the money could come from if people don’t want to go down the road of the reserve,” Campos said. “This is part and parcel of being a sanctuary city.”

Is it, though?

Asked how he defines a sanctuary city, Campos said he believed there are two basic principles.

The first, Campos said, is that “we’re not going to use our city resources for the purposes of enforcing federal immigration law.” The second, he said, is that “we’re going to accord those immigrants who live in our city basic due process, including basic legal representation for due process.” He believes paying for legal representation in immigration proceedings falls under the second principle.

We would argue that the vast majority of San Franciscans agree with the first principle but not the second.

San Francisco’s commitment to being a sanctuary city will be sorely tested by the incoming administration. We must protect our resources for the fights to come — not spend them in advance on contested ideas and problems that haven’t materialized.